Dalton v The Queen

[2015] ACTCA 48

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Dalton v The Queen

Citation:

[2015] ACTCA 48

Hearing Date:

20 February 2015

DecisionDate:

10 September 2015

Before:

Refshauge, Penfold and Wigney JJ

Decision:

1.  The appeal is dismissed.

Category:

Principal Judgment

Catchwords:

APPEAL – Sentence – forcible confinement – obtaining property by deception – attempting to obtain property by deception – manifestly excessive – comparable cases – no sentencing trend demonstrated

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)

Cases Cited:

Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26

Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 305 ALR 323
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 2002 CLR 321
Frahm v R [2014] NSWCCA 10
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Melham v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 121
R v Abbott (2007) 170 A Crim R 306
R v Catanzariti [2014] ACTSC 333
R v Hatzis (SCC 74 of 2011; 4 September 2012);
R v O’Brien [2014] ACTSC 156
R v Stott [2012] ACTCA 33

Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 305 ALR 323

Parties:

Glenn Stuart Dalton (Appellant)

The Queen (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr J Lawton (Appellant)

Mr J White SC (Respondent)

Solicitors

Pappas, j.-attorney (Appellant)

The Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 23 of 2014

Decision under appeal: 

Court:  ACT Supreme Court

Before:  Murrell CJ

Date of Decision:         28 April 2014

Case Title:  R v Dalton; R v Fleet

Citation: [2014] ACTSC 204

THE COURT:

1. The appellant, Mr Glenn Dalton, appeals to this Court against the sentence imposed on him by Murrell CJ upon his conviction for offences of forcible confinement, obtaining property by deception and attempting to obtain property by deception.  The sentence imposed was a head sentence of three years and ten months imprisonment with an effective non-parole period of two years, eight months and two weeks.  The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence is manifestly excessive. 

Facts

1. The three offences committed by the appellant occurred during a single episode of criminality on 18 and 19 June 2014 involving the appellant, a man named Elliott Fleet and a woman named Saskia Faes.  Ms Faes is the appellant’s ex-wife and the mother of his two children.  She had also been at some stage involved in a relationship with the complainant, Mr Robert Graham. There was apparently some considerable animosity between the appellant and Mr Graham arising from a dispute concerning the custody of the appellant’s children.

1. On 18 June 2013 Mr Graham was lured to an apartment in the suburb of Braddon by a text message from Ms Faes.  He arrived at the apartment to find that it was occupied not only by Ms Faes, but also by the appellant and Mr Fleet.  Upon his arrival, Mr Graham was confined and physically restrained by the appellant, and threatened by the appellant and Mr Fleet.  He was then forced into a car with the appellant, Mr Fleet and Ms…